It is if there is an ongoing revenue stream associated with the service and it can only be provided by a single source.
And in this case it isn't, everything you can get from XBL you can get from competing platforms.
In your mind, just what IS rent-seeking behavior? Do you dispute that the concept even exists?
I dispute that your interpretation of such a concept applying to somebody else's property, it's Microsoft's network, not yours. Just like you wouldn't just allow anybody to do anything in your house. You don't have to use their network but if you choose to you abide by their rules.
The barriers to compatibility are not technical in nature. The barriers stem from the fact that the consoles refuse to run code that is not cryptographically signed.
Wrong, clearly you don't understand hardware at all. How exactly do you think you're going to execute coded designed for a custom tri-core PowerPC architecture on a Cell 1x6 CPU?
It isn't instruction set compatibility that is keeping Netflix from offering an application that runs on the XBox. They could just make a game disc that connects to their service and plays video. The reason that can't do that is that MS would refuse to sign it if they did, because they want to be the gatekeepers to online services.
It's Microsoft's network, not your network, they choose what they offer on their network, they don't have to open it up to you just like you don't have to just open up your house to anybody. You are quite welcome to hack the hardware to make it run on another network if you so choose.
The problem with his analysis is that he assumes the hardware is free.
He doesn't assume that at all, he outright states it and even points out there is a cost in upgrading the RAM. Where do you get that he is 'assuming' that?
Also, not many people pay a marginal rate of $0.066/kW-hr for electricity.
But he does, and if you don't you can always adjust the figure, he provides the math he used.
I think the point you're missing is the last line: Overall it is VERY cost effective for us to run the home server. I don't know about you but I didn't interpret that post to be any kind of 'your own server is more cost effective than a VPS'
no, but if you send me 5$ a month, you can log into your netflix subscription that you have previously purchased.
if you're providing the streaming network, application and maintenance (and a bunch of other features) for a device i own that i can't already get netflix on then sure, i'd consider that.
Wow... am I really getting modded-down by AMD shills??!
Meanwhile, at AMD headquarters:
Peterson: Sir, sir!
Rory Read: What is it Peterson?
Peterson: It's terrible! There is a guy...a free thinking radical! On slashdot, he is suggesting we...
Rory Read: We what!?
Peterson:...we support our products a little longer.
Rory Read:Oh my god! Quickly Peterson, hire some people to get onto this 'slash dot', you must find a way to suppress this person! We need to devote resources to silencing such an opinion!
Without the periodic need to update one's office suite to support the features required in documents received from users of the new version there is no cue.
You do realize even the latest Office suite can open, edit and save documents from the version released nearly 13 years ago don't you? You certainly don't need to upgrade your Office suite unless you want/need the new features.
Dunno, doesn't seem possible to me with the current state of hardware. Why do you ask?
Because the only way to remove permission for the bootloader to boot the OS is to revoke a key, you can tell me i don't have permission all you want, ain't gonna make a shit of difference though, you - like Microsoft - don't have any authority over that.
Seems a bit off topic, since I was discussing permission and not certificates or keys.
However one revokes permission by using the words "you no longer have permission"
Wrong, they do not have control, they can say "you no longer have permission" all they want, makes no difference whatsoever as they have no authority.
No, the boot loader only knows if the software being booted was signed by a key that is paired to a key stored in UEFI. It can't possibly know about a legal construct such as permission or about copyright law.
It doesn't need to.
The misunderstanding here is completely on your part, which is obvious with the topics you keep bringing up.
You are speaking of technical measures. I am speaking of legal measures.
Of course I'm talking about technical measures, because the legal measures you suggest do not exist in this context. Microsoft doesn't have any power to dictate whether you have permission to boot an OS or not...I don't know why you think they do.
This is pretty typical as well. Exclusive add-on services are rent-seeking behavior, and they're very common.
Just about every product has exclusive services or features not available on other platforms, they aren't rent-seeking behavior.
Sure, when you look at the total package there is some level of competition. But, just try to switch between an X-Box and a PS3 and you'll find that you have to throw out all your games, lose all your online friends, etc.
Of course, they aren't technically compatible, but the competition absolutely is there.
Network effects are fundamentally anticompetitive, and designing your console to only work in one network is rent-seeking behavior as a result.
Oh bullshit, that sort of rubbish means designing a console or PC or phone or tablet that only works with ARM binaries and not x86 ones would be rent-seeking behavior or proprietary.
If your car manufacturer said that they'd only honor the warranty if you bought your parts and consumables from them, then that would be the same.
That's absolutely nothing like that at all, the 3rd party parts function just fine in a car, PS3 games fundamentally will not work on an XBox.
Rent-seeking behavior is when you use an established position (often gained through legitimate competition) to extract revenue in another area without the need to compete.
But it wasn't an established position, it's been like that from the start. And of course they need to compete, they have to compete with the same service(s) available on the PS3, Wii, PC, etc...
Not sure that most economists would agree with that - this is generally considered "rent-seeking behavior" and it is almost universally considered bad for the economy.
It goes through their network to provide consistent adaptive streaming across the services they offer, the fact that they've chosen to do that and included it in the XBLG subscription is not rent-seeking behavior, the streaming down their network costs them money to run.
we are humbly begging for permission to be allowed to use non-windows on our own computers
You're doing it wrong, just turn secureboot off.
If Microsoft officially claims they have revoked the certificate and thus permission for the Linux preboot loader, then instantly every desktop and server in this country running Linux is in violation of the law. Booting it is a felony.
That's an interesting take, how would one revoke a UEFI key? And how would revocation - assuming such a thing exists and is possible - of a key result in permission to load the pre-bootloader being denied? Permission to load the bootloader is granted/denied by the UEFI firmware, which makes the decision based on whether the installed key matches that of the signed bootloader, so what you're saying makes absolutely no sense, it just demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how secureboot works.
It won't boot until you press a key to continue. Many Linux machines don't have any facility for that, either because they are a tablet with no physical keyboard or because they are a headless server with no-one around to operate them locally.
Basically, 5 Dollars a Month is a whole lot of Money for nothing much.
The consistent streaming quality through the XBL network for all those services is probably the biggest benefit for streaming video, sure it's free on my PS3 but the quality just isn't as good, same for in-game voice chat quality.
obviously you don't know what attacking a traw man actually means
Of course i do, which is why i wonder why you would present me with an 'unequivalent proposition', you claim you can get a different laptop with the same specs for 1/2 the cost and cannot understand why somebody wouldn't do that. The obvious answer would be that they are unequivalent, as such that should tell you immediately there must be a reason for it and if you present me with a concrete example i will tell you what it is.
if you had a valid reason you would have offered it already, even if for no other reason than to rub it in my face
How can i give you a valid reason for choosing one item over another when you don't tell me what those items are?
Assuming what you say is correct that means it truly must be something people don't want if it's that much easier to install, there are even live cds that don't require installation.
True, but there is no reason they HAVE to do it this way.
Of course not, there's no reason Apple need to force everything through their app store either, Apple is only doing the work because they can make a boatload of money by forcing everything to go through them. That is the point of a for-profit company, especially when they provide something people are willing to pay for.
Who would ever buy support, training, and customization for an office suite? Does this really happen? And if they do buy these services, aren't they normally paying a third party consultant?
Im sure large companies would pay for support and training, the assumption is that the best people to go to would be the company/foundation that maintains the product - but who knows whether that's viable (location, cost, time) or the services are even provided by them. As for development it's probably the same deal, sure there would be some hobbyist volunteers doing bits and pieces but if it was adopted largely in the corporate world i would imagine the cost of paying 3rd parties to go through the design, development and testing process would mean they would probably go for some domain-specific or even company-specific features that wouldn't end up in the mainline, or potentially even proprietary in-house extensions rather than spending all that money and just giving it away. Most of those companies would probably prefer to just license a proprietary system.
Yes and your only argument about the way in which OSX has a functional difference from UNIX is in the "feel" of it, which is not only not a part of the UNIX specification but also not relevant for people who actually want to use it as a UNIX operating system. And even if you do care about that you could always use X11 on top of it.
My point is they're using their resources to develop, maintain and host the app on their platform and network rather than making Netflix do it. It either gets paid for by Netflix - a cost they absorb or pass on to customers (we've certainly seen recent significant price rises that they attributed to operating costs) - or Microsoft does it out of the XBLG profits (because the introduction of Netflix didn't raise the XBLG price). They made a choice on it and you can make yours, I understand you feel that either the XBLG money should be used to fund development for XBLS as well or that Netflix should do it and add it to the cost of their service like they do with other platforms but i guess they made a choice that MS would do it for XBLG subscribers.
You have to pay Microsoft for something that everyone else gives you for free
Who gives me use of microsoft's stuff for free? On XBL Silver i can use the internet too, of course the closed platform means i don't really have many apps to do stuff with.
Xbox Live is a shitty multiplayer matching and content delivery service.
It's about paying $5 to Microsoft just to be able *then* to pay that $7 to Netflix.
That $5 is for XBLG, not just for Netflix, Netflix is just one (of many) thing that Microsoft added to XBLG.
On the other consoles, on a PC, on a smartphone, this extra $5 is not required.
Great, so use one of those platforms if you have no need for XBLG outside of Netflix and don't want to pay for it. I can imagine people don't want to pay $12 instead of $7 just because it's on the XBox but it's not targeted at such people, it's a value add for those who already have XBLG and use other XBLG features.
And there is absolutely no resources from Microsoft involved.
They developed the app, maintain it, host it and the content goes through their network.
I don't recall saying anything about "look." "Feel" is more the point I was trying to make, but I'm done with this thread.
So now the problem is it doesn't feel like UNIX? The look and feel of the OS is irrelevant when discussing whether or not it is UNIX, in fact that's the sort of thing the Mac user hipster stereotype cares about in their OS.
I get nothing from this membership other than not being prevented from using a device I paid for to connect on my own internet connection to a third party service that has nothing to do with Microsoft.
So your complaint is actually that it isn't an open platform, you can access the internet just fine without Gold, you just don't really have any programs to do anything with. Same as the apple app store, if they took that away and didn't charge developers and take 30% of revenues then the closed iOS platform would be much the same. The upside is there are alternative open platforms if you prefer.
There is absolutely no reason why one should pay just to access a third party service from a console that has already been paid for using an internet connection that is also being paid for.
If that really is the case then they won't and it is simply a value add for Gold subscribers.
All those apps, including Netflix, should be available without the Gold membership.
Yeah they should just develop, maintain and run them on their network for free. It's not an open platform - this may be news to you - which is why companies like Netflix can't just develop an app and put it on there. The console market is about making up the hardware loss-leader with software royalties, they are either going to charge Netflix more to use their platform and network (which netflix would likely pass on to customers) or add it to the existing paid service. On the PS3 netflix took a different approach and developed the app themselves which you need a disc for, if you prefer that then the PS3 is the right choice for you, if you want more openness then a PC is probably a better choice for you.
Slashdot Mirror
It is if there is an ongoing revenue stream associated with the service and it can only be provided by a single source.
And in this case it isn't, everything you can get from XBL you can get from competing platforms.
In your mind, just what IS rent-seeking behavior? Do you dispute that the concept even exists?
I dispute that your interpretation of such a concept applying to somebody else's property, it's Microsoft's network, not yours. Just like you wouldn't just allow anybody to do anything in your house. You don't have to use their network but if you choose to you abide by their rules.
The barriers to compatibility are not technical in nature. The barriers stem from the fact that the consoles refuse to run code that is not cryptographically signed.
Wrong, clearly you don't understand hardware at all. How exactly do you think you're going to execute coded designed for a custom tri-core PowerPC architecture on a Cell 1x6 CPU?
It isn't instruction set compatibility that is keeping Netflix from offering an application that runs on the XBox. They could just make a game disc that connects to their service and plays video. The reason that can't do that is that MS would refuse to sign it if they did, because they want to be the gatekeepers to online services.
It's Microsoft's network, not your network, they choose what they offer on their network, they don't have to open it up to you just like you don't have to just open up your house to anybody. You are quite welcome to hack the hardware to make it run on another network if you so choose.
The problem with his analysis is that he assumes the hardware is free.
He doesn't assume that at all, he outright states it and even points out there is a cost in upgrading the RAM. Where do you get that he is 'assuming' that?
Also, not many people pay a marginal rate of $0.066/kW-hr for electricity.
But he does, and if you don't you can always adjust the figure, he provides the math he used.
I think the point you're missing is the last line:
Overall it is VERY cost effective for us to run the home server.
I don't know about you but I didn't interpret that post to be any kind of 'your own server is more cost effective than a VPS'
no, but if you send me 5$ a month, you can log into your netflix subscription that you have previously purchased.
if you're providing the streaming network, application and maintenance (and a bunch of other features) for a device i own that i can't already get netflix on then sure, i'd consider that.
Wow... am I really getting modded-down by AMD shills??!
Meanwhile, at AMD headquarters: ...we support our products a little longer.
Peterson: Sir, sir!
Rory Read: What is it Peterson?
Peterson: It's terrible! There is a guy...a free thinking radical! On slashdot, he is suggesting we...
Rory Read: We what!?
Peterson:
Rory Read: Oh my god! Quickly Peterson, hire some people to get onto this 'slash dot', you must find a way to suppress this person! We need to devote resources to silencing such an opinion!
Ummm yeah, we're talking about the other way around. Can you open my PPTX resume with star-wipes on your 13 year old platform/software?
Yes, that's what the compatibility pack is for.
Without the periodic need to update one's office suite to support the features required in documents received from users of the new version there is no cue.
You do realize even the latest Office suite can open, edit and save documents from the version released nearly 13 years ago don't you? You certainly don't need to upgrade your Office suite unless you want/need the new features.
Dunno, doesn't seem possible to me with the current state of hardware. Why do you ask?
Because the only way to remove permission for the bootloader to boot the OS is to revoke a key, you can tell me i don't have permission all you want, ain't gonna make a shit of difference though, you - like Microsoft - don't have any authority over that.
Seems a bit off topic, since I was discussing permission and not certificates or keys.
Seems you fail at reading comprehension on your own post, try reading it again then you won't look so foolish:
If Microsoft officially claims they have revoked the certificate and thus permission for the Linux preboot loader
Dunno, I never said anything about revoking a key.
You said 'certificate' as opposed to 'key', given there is no such 'certificate' i figured you meant 'key', if you'd like to explain what you meant by 'revoked the certificate' we can clear up that misunderstanding.
If Microsoft officially claims they have revoked the certificate and thus permission for the Linux preboot loader
However one revokes permission by using the words "you no longer have permission"
Wrong, they do not have control, they can say "you no longer have permission" all they want, makes no difference whatsoever as they have no authority.
No, the boot loader only knows if the software being booted was signed by a key that is paired to a key stored in UEFI. It can't possibly know about a legal construct such as permission or about copyright law.
It doesn't need to.
The misunderstanding here is completely on your part, which is obvious with the topics you keep bringing up.
You are speaking of technical measures. I am speaking of legal measures.
Of course I'm talking about technical measures, because the legal measures you suggest do not exist in this context. Microsoft doesn't have any power to dictate whether you have permission to boot an OS or not...I don't know why you think they do.
This is pretty typical as well. Exclusive add-on services are rent-seeking behavior, and they're very common.
Just about every product has exclusive services or features not available on other platforms, they aren't rent-seeking behavior.
Sure, when you look at the total package there is some level of competition. But, just try to switch between an X-Box and a PS3 and you'll find that you have to throw out all your games, lose all your online friends, etc.
Of course, they aren't technically compatible, but the competition absolutely is there.
Network effects are fundamentally anticompetitive, and designing your console to only work in one network is rent-seeking behavior as a result.
Oh bullshit, that sort of rubbish means designing a console or PC or phone or tablet that only works with ARM binaries and not x86 ones would be rent-seeking behavior or proprietary.
If your car manufacturer said that they'd only honor the warranty if you bought your parts and consumables from them, then that would be the same.
That's absolutely nothing like that at all, the 3rd party parts function just fine in a car, PS3 games fundamentally will not work on an XBox.
Rent-seeking behavior is when you use an established position (often gained through legitimate competition) to extract revenue in another area without the need to compete.
But it wasn't an established position, it's been like that from the start. And of course they need to compete, they have to compete with the same service(s) available on the PS3, Wii, PC, etc...
Not sure that most economists would agree with that - this is generally considered "rent-seeking behavior" and it is almost universally considered bad for the economy.
It goes through their network to provide consistent adaptive streaming across the services they offer, the fact that they've chosen to do that and included it in the XBLG subscription is not rent-seeking behavior, the streaming down their network costs them money to run.
Why do the majority (it seems) of Slashdotters use the british spelling of 'whine'?
You mean 'whinge'? A synonym of the word 'whine' which is both spelled and pronounced differently?
we are humbly begging for permission to be allowed to use non-windows on our own computers
You're doing it wrong, just turn secureboot off.
If Microsoft officially claims they have revoked the certificate and thus permission for the Linux preboot loader, then instantly every desktop and server in this country running Linux is in violation of the law. Booting it is a felony.
That's an interesting take, how would one revoke a UEFI key? And how would revocation - assuming such a thing exists and is possible - of a key result in permission to load the pre-bootloader being denied? Permission to load the bootloader is granted/denied by the UEFI firmware, which makes the decision based on whether the installed key matches that of the signed bootloader, so what you're saying makes absolutely no sense, it just demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how secureboot works.
It won't boot until you press a key to continue. Many Linux machines don't have any facility for that, either because they are a tablet with no physical keyboard or because they are a headless server with no-one around to operate them locally.
Why would you want secureboot on such devices?
Basically, 5 Dollars a Month is a whole lot of Money for nothing much.
The consistent streaming quality through the XBL network for all those services is probably the biggest benefit for streaming video, sure it's free on my PS3 but the quality just isn't as good, same for in-game voice chat quality.
obviously you don't know what attacking a traw man actually means
Of course i do, which is why i wonder why you would present me with an 'unequivalent proposition', you claim you can get a different laptop with the same specs for 1/2 the cost and cannot understand why somebody wouldn't do that. The obvious answer would be that they are unequivalent, as such that should tell you immediately there must be a reason for it and if you present me with a concrete example i will tell you what it is.
if you had a valid reason you would have offered it already, even if for no other reason than to rub it in my face
How can i give you a valid reason for choosing one item over another when you don't tell me what those items are?
Assuming what you say is correct that means it truly must be something people don't want if it's that much easier to install, there are even live cds that don't require installation.
True, but there is no reason they HAVE to do it this way.
Of course not, there's no reason Apple need to force everything through their app store either, Apple is only doing the work because they can make a boatload of money by forcing everything to go through them. That is the point of a for-profit company, especially when they provide something people are willing to pay for.
Who would ever buy support, training, and customization for an office suite? Does this really happen? And if they do buy these services, aren't they normally paying a third party consultant?
Im sure large companies would pay for support and training, the assumption is that the best people to go to would be the company/foundation that maintains the product - but who knows whether that's viable (location, cost, time) or the services are even provided by them.
As for development it's probably the same deal, sure there would be some hobbyist volunteers doing bits and pieces but if it was adopted largely in the corporate world i would imagine the cost of paying 3rd parties to go through the design, development and testing process would mean they would probably go for some domain-specific or even company-specific features that wouldn't end up in the mainline, or potentially even proprietary in-house extensions rather than spending all that money and just giving it away. Most of those companies would probably prefer to just license a proprietary system.
Yes and your only argument about the way in which OSX has a functional difference from UNIX is in the "feel" of it, which is not only not a part of the UNIX specification but also not relevant for people who actually want to use it as a UNIX operating system. And even if you do care about that you could always use X11 on top of it.
My point is they're using their resources to develop, maintain and host the app on their platform and network rather than making Netflix do it. It either gets paid for by Netflix - a cost they absorb or pass on to customers (we've certainly seen recent significant price rises that they attributed to operating costs) - or Microsoft does it out of the XBLG profits (because the introduction of Netflix didn't raise the XBLG price). They made a choice on it and you can make yours, I understand you feel that either the XBLG money should be used to fund development for XBLS as well or that Netflix should do it and add it to the cost of their service like they do with other platforms but i guess they made a choice that MS would do it for XBLG subscribers.
You have to pay Microsoft for something that everyone else gives you for free
Who gives me use of microsoft's stuff for free? On XBL Silver i can use the internet too, of course the closed platform means i don't really have many apps to do stuff with.
Xbox Live is a shitty multiplayer matching and content delivery service.
So why would you use it?
It's about paying $5 to Microsoft just to be able *then* to pay that $7 to Netflix.
That $5 is for XBLG, not just for Netflix, Netflix is just one (of many) thing that Microsoft added to XBLG.
On the other consoles, on a PC, on a smartphone, this extra $5 is not required.
Great, so use one of those platforms if you have no need for XBLG outside of Netflix and don't want to pay for it. I can imagine people don't want to pay $12 instead of $7 just because it's on the XBox but it's not targeted at such people, it's a value add for those who already have XBLG and use other XBLG features.
And there is absolutely no resources from Microsoft involved.
They developed the app, maintain it, host it and the content goes through their network.
I don't recall saying anything about "look." "Feel" is more the point I was trying to make, but I'm done with this thread.
So now the problem is it doesn't feel like UNIX? The look and feel of the OS is irrelevant when discussing whether or not it is UNIX, in fact that's the sort of thing the Mac user hipster stereotype cares about in their OS.
I get nothing from this membership other than not being prevented from using a device I paid for to connect on my own internet connection to a third party service that has nothing to do with Microsoft.
So your complaint is actually that it isn't an open platform, you can access the internet just fine without Gold, you just don't really have any programs to do anything with. Same as the apple app store, if they took that away and didn't charge developers and take 30% of revenues then the closed iOS platform would be much the same. The upside is there are alternative open platforms if you prefer.
There is absolutely no reason why one should pay just to access a third party service from a console that has already been paid for using an internet connection that is also being paid for.
If that really is the case then they won't and it is simply a value add for Gold subscribers.
All those apps, including Netflix, should be available without the Gold membership.
Yeah they should just develop, maintain and run them on their network for free. It's not an open platform - this may be news to you - which is why companies like Netflix can't just develop an app and put it on there. The console market is about making up the hardware loss-leader with software royalties, they are either going to charge Netflix more to use their platform and network (which netflix would likely pass on to customers) or add it to the existing paid service. On the PS3 netflix took a different approach and developed the app themselves which you need a disc for, if you prefer that then the PS3 is the right choice for you, if you want more openness then a PC is probably a better choice for you.